If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Actually, a couple of cases and interpretations/summaries I found indicated that a website may very well be considered "publishing, duplication, reproduction, and reissuing."

Moreover, the non-prohibition of "mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted" is interpreted to be a protection for the non-decisionmaking support crew (stage hands, gaffers, grips, messengers, mail room attendants), not those who make the editorial decisions of the material that finds its way into publication.

If the OurPPA.com were a revenue-producing device (like a men's magazine), then it might be worth the financial cost of gaining and maintaining model documentation and it might be worth the financial risk of legal defense if the Alabama or Georgia courts decided to go after the PPA (those are the states where website servers reside and where editorial judgments for the site are made, respectively...notice that those are quite conservative states).

If the PPA were the ACLU and thus had the primary mission of expanding the boundaries of freedom of speech, then daring Georgia and Alabama courts would fall into the mission of the organization.

But OurPPA.com is not revenue-producing, nor does the PPA have the primary mission of pushing the boundaries of freedom of speech. Having a vital interest in the protection of freedom of speech is not the same thing as having the mission of expanding the boundaries of freedom of speech--it's like the difference between a state militia and the Marine Corps.

PPA is certainly not obligated to bear that risk and cost for individual photographers who do intend to expand the boundaries of freedom of speech, especially given that those photographers have more ability to self-publish today (via the web) than in any time in the past.

PPA already annoys federal and state governments by combatting them on issues like copyright modifications and health insurance. PPA is already on their "we don't like these people much" lists...why create unnecessary vulnerability on an issue that is not of substantial benefit to the vast majority of PPA members?

Being a publication venue for frontal nudity is of too minimal benefit to the vast majority of the OurPPA.com audience to take on the cost and risk. It just isn't worth it.

As for us not actually "producing" the images, you are correct because distributing the images is not seen as breaking the law.

Article (2257) Paragraph (h) section (3)

the term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted

In that matter then yes you are correct that we are not directly liable for the distribution.

--Elephants can swim......and very gracefully. Knowing that, I do believe Anything is possible for me.

In our state competitions

In our state photography competitions, in the rules it says to keep in mind that the general public may see the images and to keep that in mind.

The same goes for the gallery section... the general public has access. There are plenty of knowledgable photographers on the Forum. If someone has a romantic image they would like to get an opinion on they can PM and ask to send the image(s) to them.

I for one completely understand the decisions made by the PPA on this matter and agree that it is in the best interest of the association and all who work for the PPA.

There is absolutely no reason in these days and times to take business risks when they can be simple avoided. If one wants to post questionable art on their own website, then fine, they can bear that responsibility. This is not censorship but a very solid and sound business decision based on Federal laws.

I think that you have an interesting point about having a section of the gallery for members only. I have passed this idea along to Greg.

More segragration? More alienation but putting that as a members only also? I like the other idea, make it by request only...if someone wants to view that material then let them request it. I myself find such images offensive but I don't think it should be a ppa member thing only because there are many legit pros that are not ppa members and they should not be restricted because they choose not to pay that membership fee if they want to view the material.

We will include some info in the next forum newsletter, and the committee is looking at updating some of the rules of the forum so this issue will be more clear to new users as well.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

I'm not sure I've ever received a forum newsletter, are they sent by email, are we to sign up for them or do they automatically get sent to members or are they posted somewhere on the site? How often are they published, on a timed basis or just when something worth noting comes up?

but I don't think it should be a ppa member thing only because there are many legit pros that are not ppa members and they should not be restricted because they choose not to pay that membership fee if they want to view the material.

LOL.
Hope you don't take this the wrong way Charles, but let me understand that sentence a bit. Photographers who don't want to be PPA members but still want and expect to recieve some kind of benefits?
I don't want to sound snippy, but the last time I went to the Country Club I wasn't paying dues at, they seemed to have no trouble telling me I couldn't play on their course or swim in their pool. The nerve of them.

As Matt explained, we're simply doing the same policy for all here, no special section, but saying we shouldn't have a restriction against non-members who don't pay PPA membership dues is, well, what we call here in NY, chutzpah.

Best laugh I've had today.

And what we do already for "non-members" is this here Forum, lobbying in Washington, and many other things. It just amazes me at what people expect us to do for them with no support.
And you're not the only one Charles. Not by a long shot. I had someone recently at a regional banquet upset with PPA because we wouldn't help him with his specific problem, just because he wasn't a member. Chutzpah. He backed down when others at our table agreed with me, that as a non-member, there was no expectation of help.

Yes, after having a meeting with the committee we discovered that there is a federal law concerning having pictures of fully exposed breast and/or gentilia. The two laws above go into more detail about it.